Star Trek in HD - with revised special effects? (1 Viewer)

[John H Ross]

I don't quite see your point...! It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a film or a TV show, the original content is the original content.

Using your argument Star Wars (or ANY movie) shouldn't be seen in the home at all since it was meant to be viewed in cinemas, so why release it on ANY home video format?

JR

 

[Dave Scarpa]

See I Never found the effects in TOS cheesy

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I'd Netflix them to check them out.

 

[John H Ross]

Exactly. And they've been perfectly fine for 40 years. I can't believe there are so many people willing to just toss them out just because the technology dictates it.

Sigh...

JR

 

[PeterTHX]

Uh huh. Well watch the Star Wars prequels and tell me which ones are CG and which are models (hint: they are both mixed in together).

Star Trek: First Contact: all the other ships, save for the Ent-E, Borg Cube/Sphere, and the Phoenix are CG. Even the Defiant.

Poseidon: Completely CG. No models, no water, all shots.

 

[PeterTHX]

Sorry folks, but as a VFX fan from the day I saw Star Wars, I always thought the shots in the original Trek were rather dated looking.

What bothers me most is the stock footage. There were maybe 10 shots of the ship for the entire series. That alone warrants something new IMHO.
Roddenberry tried to do the same for TNG: have ILM shoot many ship shots and use those throughout. By the end of the second season they realized it wasn't going to work anymore and had Greg Jein build a new, smaller Enterprise D model and have Image G shoot a bunch of new ship shots based on what the new episodes called for and what they could afford (the new model & VFX debuted the third season).

 

[Michael Rogers]

I would enjoy new effects on Trek episodes (hope they put it out on regular DVD too) as long as it remains an option and not a replacement.

 

[Gord Lacey]

I see a lot of people saying "we want the ORIGINAL stuff in HD too" but that's the problem with going to HD; you can't get the original episodes in HD because they were mastered to tape. You won't see any benefit going to HD, so you'd basically be tossing your money away. That's why they're talking about going back to the original material and redoing the special effects, because it's those effects shots that are holding it back.

Had Lucas released the original Star Wars on DVD before the special edition cuts I don't think we would have heard much about it. Fans would have enjoyed their original versions, and not cared too much about the special edition versions being released. This is a different situation because those original episodes exist on DVD, and the way their were finished is what's holding them back from being released in HD.

At least that's my take on it.

Gord

 

[Tony J Case]

Yup - and I could easily spot them. After doing some reading, I was batting about an 80% correct. Mixing the two, I could spot it like a penguin that had been spraypainted Sea Rescue Orange. It didnt stop me from enjoying the movies, but it was like spotting the strings in a Flash Gordon episode - took me out of the moment.

Same thing here - it looked sloppy, like I was playing Star Trek: The Video Game on the X-Box or something. If thats the future, forget it. Give me the past.

 

[Jake Yenor]

The test on that TOS episode was jarring, it wasn't well done. But we have seen what Paramount can do. In 2005 they created a cgi verison of the original ship design and used it on ENT. It looked AMAZING and faaaar better than the TOS model:

 

[Jonny P]

Should we also go in and give Magnum, P.I. a new Ferrari and lengthen his shorts??

Part of the appeal of TOS were the cheesy effects shots. They portrayed the future as an amalgamation of painted styrofoam and cardboard...and that is part of the charm.

I am sure the concern is that some of the elements will look bad in a high-resolution format. However, I find new footage to be distracting and gimmicky most of the time.

I'd love to have Robert Duvall's original car chase intact in the "THX-1138" DVD rather than the Phantom Menace-ish CGI add-in.

The quandary with hi-def is how good is "too good."

Older shows -- such as Andy Griffith -- have stood the test of time.

Andy Griffith and I Love Lucy were made for black-and-white televisions with one speaker for sound.

The fact is that those shows have held up well through years of color televisions capable of handling stereo audio and the like. In fact, I'd argue that the b&w episodes of Andy Griffith are much more enjoyable than the later season that were in color.

I understand the obsession with "cool visuals" on the new breed of TV monitors. The fact is that good shows stand the test of time -- regardless of grain, scratches and low-brow special effects.

I'd rather see shows as they were -- not how someone thinks they ought to look on the new breed of televisions.

It is preferrable when they clean some of the shows (and films) up. However, there is a difference between remastering and redoing.

I know it doesn't seem this way now, but the day will come when the hi-def images of today will look "lo-def." Are we simply going to "scrap" created characters like Gollum in LOTR for a new and improved digital version (that might lack the quirks and nuances of the current version)?

 

[RickER]

Gord your comments are right, but, they are right in regards to TNG, DS9, and VOY. those shows were edited on video, and the effects done on video. Even now you can see video jaggies on the Enterprise D saucer.
TOS was 100% film, even the effects. And as has been said earlier they reused shots over and over. By the time they got to the end of a season the original effect shot has been scratched to hell and back from being duped so many times.

Id take that seam out of Spocks ear too.

 

[Nelson Au]

Gord- You must be referring to The Next Generation effects that were done on tape.

One more thought to post; are we forgetting that Star Trek TOS was made on film. It's already higher resolution then most HD equipment can recreate on a home monitor. That is if I understand the technical stuff. Film has a huge pixel count compared to video.

So what we are discussing is really upgrading the visual effects. Here are things that I can see make more sense for upgrading the visual effects. If you want to fix stuff like when the blue screen effect sometimes didn't work out and caused the engine nacelles to fade in and out during a fly-by, I can see someone wanting to fix that. If they wanted to add a Klingon Scout ship that was nothing more then a yellow blip on the view screen, then I can see that too. And then there are ships we never see because there was no budget or time to build them. The Gorn ship is never seen, yet we buy that they are chasing it. I think less is more works here.

Those video clip posted above from Enterprise were very well done. But it's a modern Star Trek show, they have to do that because a modern audience expects it. I know we are talking about upgrading TOS for a modern new younger audience. It was posted eariler that Bill Hunt had hinted that the new effects will be branched so the viewer can toggle it on and off. I missed that, I hope that's true!

 

[John H Ross]

It's amazing the lengths that some people (read: Paramount) will go to when there's a chance they'll not be able to take us to the cleaners one more time! We've bought Trek on VHS, laserdisc and now DVD. And they STILL want more of our cash! Greedy b******ds!

If there's no benefit going to HD with Trek there's a simple solution: don't go to HD! Gosh, that was easy... and cheap! AND we get Trek as it was originally shown and the way we've enjoyed it for so, so, so many years. Integrity is retained. The galaxy is safe.

HD... PAH!!

JR

 

[Jonathan_Clarke]

But what are they going to do about the drywall sets and the cheap costumes?

TOS is of its era. I'll keep the original run (all 40 discs of it!).

 

[John H Ross]

That's a LOT of branching.

I'm still waiting for Paramount to release the original and, in some ways, superior version of Star Trek: The Motion Picture on DVD. They're not big on giving us multiple versions are Paramount. Oh no. Unless, I guess, they see money in it in which case "how many would you like?"

Sigh...

JR

 

[John H Ross]

Exactly. And the shots which are flipped because the actor was facing the wrong way. And the music cues which were re-used again and again (it wasn't just the exterior effects shots that were re-used to save money you know!) and the rather silly looking monsters.

Gosh, has Star Trek been CRAP all these years? And nobody told me? Sob Sob.

JR

 

[Jack Briggs]

You might try spelling the film's title correctly: Citizen Kane. You know, with a "k." And your unwillingness to watch black-and-white films says more about you than it does about the films.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

John H Ross wrote

"If there's no benefit going to HD with Trek there's a simple solution: don't go to HD! Gosh, that was easy... and cheap! AND we get Trek as it was originally shown and the way we've enjoyed it for so, so, so many years. Integrity is retained. The galaxy is safe."


Exactly, that's the point we're trying to make. If you don't want the new special effects you're in luck because you don't have to get them, and you've already got the original series in a pristine format fully preserving the original state of the show.

So why are you in here complaining about it?

 

[JoSAN]

.